abstract: The rights of American Indians occupy a unique position within the legal framework of water allocations in the western United States. However, in the formulation and execution of policies that controlled access to water in the desert Southwest, federal and local governments did not preserve the federal reserved water rights that attached to Indian reservations as part of their creation. Consequentially, Indian communities were unable to access the water supplies necessary to sustain the economic development of their reservations. This dissertation analyzes the legal and historical dimensions of the conflict over rights that occurred between Indian communities and non-Indian water users in Arizona during the second half of the twentieth century. Particular attention is paid to negotiations involving local, state, federal, and tribal parties, which led to the Congressional authorization of water rights settlements for several reservations in central Arizona. The historical, economic, and political forces that shaped the settlement process are analyzed in order to gain a better understanding of how water users managed uncertainty regarding their long-term water supplies. The Indian water rights settlement process was made possible through a reconfiguration of major institutional, legal, and policy arrangements that dictate the allocation of water supplies in Arizona. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. History 2011

<p>This composite dissertation explores mediation in internal armed conflicts from a bargaining perspective. Four separate essays investigate why mediation occurs, why it is successful, and why peace guarantors’ commitments are credible. Essay 1 examines the conditions under which mediation takes place. The study argues that whereas it is costly for governments to accept international mediation, it is a less costly intervention tool for potential third parties. This argument implies that mediation will be more likely when and where negotiated settlements are least likely to be reached, a contention that is supported by empirical tests. Essay 2 reviews the contemporary debate on what types of mediators that can disseminate information in a credible manner, and formulates a set of testable hypotheses on mediation partiality. The analysis shows that negotiated settlements are more likely if biased or interested mediators intervene, while neutral mediators are not associated with mediation success. Essay 3 elaborates on the role of biased mediators. It proposes that rebels face a commitment problem when negotiated settlements are to be reached, which government-biased mediators can mitigate. The study finds that such types of mediators outperform rebel-biased mediators in terms of helping combatants to settle the armed conflict. Essay 4 deals with the commitment problem that comes to pass between, on the one hand the primary parties, and on the other, the potential peace guarantors. The study probes the requests and promises for third-party security guarantees and suggests that the reputation of the United Nations (UN) enhances its credibility as peace guarantor compared to non-UN actors. It finds that although the UN is more restrictive with its promises, it is more likely that peacekeeping forces will be provided if the UN is one of the guarantors. In sum, utilizing unique data from two time-periods (post World War II and post Cold War), this dissertation arrives at new insights on the role of mediators in bringing about negotiated settlements of internal armed conflicts.</p>

This composite dissertation explores mediation in internal armed conflicts from a bargaining perspective. Four separate essays investigate why mediation occurs, why it is successful, and why peace guarantors’ commitments are credible. Essay 1 examines the conditions under which mediation takes place. The study argues that whereas it is costly for governments to accept international mediation, it is a less costly intervention tool for potential third parties. This argument implies that mediation will be more likely when and where negotiated settlements are least likely to be reached, a contention that is supported by empirical tests. Essay 2 reviews the contemporary debate on what types of mediators that can disseminate information in a credible manner, and formulates a set of testable hypotheses on mediation partiality. The analysis shows that negotiated settlements are more likely if biased or interested mediators intervene, while neutral mediators are not associated with mediation success. Essay 3 elaborates on the role of biased mediators. It proposes that rebels face a commitment problem when negotiated settlements are to be reached, which government-biased mediators can mitigate. The study finds that such types of mediators outperform rebel-biased mediators in terms of helping combatants to settle the armed conflict. Essay 4 deals with the commitment problem that comes to pass between, on the one hand the primary parties, and on the other, the potential peace guarantors. The study probes the requests and promises for third-party security guarantees and suggests that the reputation of the United Nations (UN) enhances its credibility as peace guarantor compared to non-UN actors. It finds that although the UN is more restrictive with its promises, it is more likely that peacekeeping forces will be provided if the UN is one of the guarantors. In sum, utilizing unique data from two time-periods (post World War II and post Cold War), this dissertation arrives at new insights on the role of mediators in bringing about negotiated settlements of internal armed conflicts.

No description available.

This study is an attempt to critique the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission from a theological ethical perspective. The central critique and argument of this study will be that, it is impossible to reconcile the dispossessor and the dispossessed or the oppressor and oppressed in the way the South African TRC did. As such, it will be befitting to start off this study which explores some of the noticeable lessons and challenges emerging from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter, the TRC) by elucidating that this study is an attempt to contribute to the on-going discussions on reconciliation. It is also vital to mention up front that this study attempts to contribute to the discussion on reconciliation which seeks to remove injustice at the root. It contributes to a discussion of the weeds of alienation and fragmentation, and it stands in contrast to the frequent use of reconciliation merely to reach some political accommodation and not to address the critical questions of justice, equality and dignity (Boesak & DeYoung 2012). It is also befitting to point out that two central themes – political pietism and Christian quietism – form the backdrop to this study (Boesak & DeYoung 2012). The study contends that reconciliation in South Africa was used merely to reach some political accommodation and did not address the three critical questions of justice, equality and dignity. These arrangements perpetually favour the rich and powerful but deprive the powerless of justice and dignity. Hitherto, this reconciliation is presented as if it does respond to the need for genuine reconciliation and employs a language that sounds like the truth, but it is in fact deceitful – and this we call political pietism. It is also vital to mention that “reconciliation” is a Christian concept, and as such, Christians’ measure matters of reconciliation with the yardstick of the gospel and therefore should know better. However, as it will be shown in this study, when Christians in South Africa discovered that the TRC was not really promoting reconciliation, they became complicit in a deceitful reconciliation. This may have been for reasons of self-protection, fear or a desire for acceptance by the powers that govern the world. Whichever way one looks at it, they tried to seek to accommodate the situation, to justify it and to refuse to run the risk of challenge and prophetic truth telling. As a result, they denied the demands of the gospel and refused solidarity with the powerless and oppressed. This is called Christian quietism (Boesak & DeYoung 2012:1). This study in its attempt to critique the South Africa TRC from a theological ethical perspective will point out that, the TRC which was obviously the product of the negotiated settlement needs to be understood against the background of the global struggle of particularly Third-World countries which were resisting authoritarian regimes put in place by the West for the benefit of the West. As such, this study will point out how the West, in their attempt to keep a grip on the Third-World countries – particularly on their resources – had to recommend and promote their notion of democracy. Democracy became the only option for Third-World countries as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union. It must, however, be mentioned that the problem is not democracy but the manifestation thereof under capitalism. This is because the notion of democracy was recommended to Third-World countries when capitalism was becoming global. As such, this presented some contradictions because democracy emphasizes joint interests, equality and common loyalties whilst capitalism is based on self-seeking inequality and conflicting individual and group interest (Terriblanche 2002). This means that a transition to democracy (especially constitutional democracy) means that the former oppressor or dispossessor will hold on to economic power. As such, the sudden interest of both the NP and the corporate sector in South Africa to a transition to democracy needs to be understood against this background. This study will argue and demonstrate how the ANC was outsmarted during the negotiations in that, at the formal negotiations, the ANC won political power whilst the NP/corporate sector in South Africa won economic power. This is mentioned to here to point out that both the elite compromise reached at the formal and informal negotiations and the influence of the Latin-American truth commissions led to the inability or unwillingness of the TRC to uncover the truth about systemic exploitation. As such, this study will argue and demonstrate that, on the one hand, reconciliation was not added to the truth commission for the purpose of confronting the country with the demands of the gospel and, on the other hand, the TRC was set up (from its inception) for failure. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / D.Th. (Theological Ethics)

This study is an attempt to critique the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission from a theological ethical perspective. The central critique and argument of this study will be that, it is impossible to reconcile the dispossessor and the dispossessed or the oppressor and oppressed in the way the South African TRC did. As such, it will be befitting to start off this study which explores some of the noticeable lessons and challenges emerging from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter, the TRC) by elucidating that this study is an attempt to contribute to the on-going discussions on reconciliation. It is also vital to mention up front that this study attempts to contribute to the discussion on reconciliation which seeks to remove injustice at the root. It contributes to a discussion of the weeds of alienation and fragmentation, and it stands in contrast to the frequent use of reconciliation merely to reach some political accommodation and not to address the critical questions of justice, equality and dignity (Boesak & DeYoung 2012). It is also befitting to point out that two central themes – political pietism and Christian quietism – form the backdrop to this study (Boesak & DeYoung 2012). The study contends that reconciliation in South Africa was used merely to reach some political accommodation and did not address the three critical questions of justice, equality and dignity. These arrangements perpetually favour the rich and powerful but deprive the powerless of justice and dignity. Hitherto, this reconciliation is presented as if it does respond to the need for genuine reconciliation and employs a language that sounds like the truth, but it is in fact deceitful – and this we call political pietism. It is also vital to mention that “reconciliation” is a Christian concept, and as such, Christians’ measure matters of reconciliation with the yardstick of the gospel and therefore should know better. However, as it will be shown in this study, when Christians in South Africa discovered that the TRC was not really promoting reconciliation, they became complicit in a deceitful reconciliation. This may have been for reasons of self-protection, fear or a desire for acceptance by the powers that govern the world. Whichever way one looks at it, they tried to seek to accommodate the situation, to justify it and to refuse to run the risk of challenge and prophetic truth telling. As a result, they denied the demands of the gospel and refused solidarity with the powerless and oppressed. This is called Christian quietism (Boesak & DeYoung 2012:1). This study in its attempt to critique the South Africa TRC from a theological ethical perspective will point out that, the TRC which was obviously the product of the negotiated settlement needs to be understood against the background of the global struggle of particularly Third-World countries which were resisting authoritarian regimes put in place by the West for the benefit of the West. As such, this study will point out how the West, in their attempt to keep a grip on the Third-World countries – particularly on their resources – had to recommend and promote their notion of democracy. Democracy became the only option for Third-World countries as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union. It must, however, be mentioned that the problem is not democracy but the manifestation thereof under capitalism. This is because the notion of democracy was recommended to Third-World countries when capitalism was becoming global. As such, this presented some contradictions because democracy emphasizes joint interests, equality and common loyalties whilst capitalism is based on self-seeking inequality and conflicting individual and group interest (Terriblanche 2002). This means that a transition to democracy (especially constitutional democracy) means that the former oppressor or dispossessor will hold on to economic power. As such, the sudden interest of both the NP and the corporate sector in South Africa to a transition to democracy needs to be understood against this background. This study will argue and demonstrate how the ANC was outsmarted during the negotiations in that, at the formal negotiations, the ANC won political power whilst the NP/corporate sector in South Africa won economic power. This is mentioned to here to point out that both the elite compromise reached at the formal and informal negotiations and the influence of the Latin-American truth commissions led to the inability or unwillingness of the TRC to uncover the truth about systemic exploitation. As such, this study will argue and demonstrate that, on the one hand, reconciliation was not added to the truth commission for the purpose of confronting the country with the demands of the gospel and, on the other hand, the TRC was set up (from its inception) for failure. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / D. Th. (Theological Ethics)